Hernandez Saldivar v. Blanche et al

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CRISTOBAL HERNANDEZ SALDIVAR,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-547
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Cristobal Hernandez Saldivar is currently detained by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas. In 2019, an
Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed, but granted him “deferral of removal” to Mexico.
(Pet., Doc. 1, ¶ 17) In May 2026, Respondents detained Petitioner and he has remained in custody
since then. (Id. at ¶ 19)
Respondents move to dismiss the Petition, arguing that it is not yet ripe under Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Motion, Doc. 9) A United States Magistrate Judge has
recommended that the Petition be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (R&R, Doc.
12) Petitioner timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., Doc. 13)
The Court must conduct de novo review of any portion of the Report and Recommendation
that “has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). After conducting that review, the
Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly and ably addresses the issues
that Petitioner raises.
Petitioner contends that the Report and Recommendation “elevates form over
constitutional substance by focusing exclusively on the most recent custody date while
disregarding the Government’s continuing inability to execute the removal order.” (Objs., Doc.
13, 4) The Court disagrees. The Supreme Court has established that the United States
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00547 Document 14 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
Government may constitutionally detain an alien subject to a final order of removal for a
presumptively-reasonable period of six months. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. As the Report and
Recommendation correctly notes, courts consider whether removal is reasonably foreseeable only
after the six-month period has expired. (See R&R, Doc. 12, 3 (citing Agyei-Kodie v. Holder, 418
F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2011)))
Petitioner also argues that under the Report and Recommendation’s analysis, “each time
ICE elects to take Petitioner back into custody, a new period of presumptively reasonable
detention begins, regardless of the Government’s prior inability to execute the same removal
order and regardless of whether the legal and factual barriers to removal remain unchanged.”
(R&R, Doc. 13, 6) This hypothetical, however, does not depict Petitioner’s circumstances.
Petitioner does not allege that Respondents have repeatedly released him and re-detained him to
trigger a new six-month period. As a result, the Court does not reach whether such a scenario
would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under Zadvydas.
As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12). It is:
ORDERED that Petitioner Cristobal Hernandez Saldivar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and
ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is DENIED as moot.1
This is a final and appealable order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed on July 31, 2026.
____________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge
1 Respondents move for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court denies the Petition based
on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), but based on the same substantive arguments as within the motion to
dismiss.
Case 1:26-cv-00547 Document 14 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2